Tuesday, March 31, 2009

THE BUDGIE - screen shots



THE BUDGIE

What if the Dark Knight's secret identity was actually a bungler like Maxwell Smart?

THE BUDGIE is a loser superhero- no powers, no gimmicks and very little luck with the ladies. He just throws himself -literally- heart and soul into crimefighting.

Orion. Now why that name and why now?


[link to www.reuters.com]

By Jasmin Melvin

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - NASA gave visitors to the National Mall in Washington a peek at a full-size mock-up of the spacecraft designed to carry U.S. astronauts back to the moon and then on to Mars one day.

The U.S. Navy-built Orion crew exploration vehicle will replace the space shuttle NASA plans to retire in 2010, and become the cornerstone of the agency's Constellation Program to explore the moon, Mars and beyond.

"We're just very proud to build this, do some testing and demonstrate to America that we're moving beyond the space shuttle onto another generation of spacecraft," said Don Pearson, project manager for the Post-Landing Orion Recovery Test or PORT.

NASA plans to use Orion to carry astronauts to the International Space Station by 2015. The capsule will rotate the crew at the station every six months "to work out the kinks" before heading to the moon and Mars, Pearson said.

Trips to the moon are scheduled for 2020, while a journey to Mars is believed possible by the mid-2030s.

The design of Orion was based on the Apollo spacecraft, which first took Americans to the moon. Although similar in shape, Orion is larger, able to carry six crew members rather than three, and builds on 1960s technology to make it safer.

'WE WANT TO GO TO MARS'

Orion is named for a bright constellation that got its designation from a hunter in ancient Greek mythology.

"The reason we're doing all of this is because we want to go to Mars," Pearson said.

But a round trip to the red planet would require three years -- six to nine months to get there and much of the rest of the time waiting for the planets to realign to allow for entry back to Earth.

"We're not confident in our technology yet to be able to last for three years without things breaking that are unrepairable," Pearson said.

So NASA plans to first take several trips to the moon, a journey of just three days. Each visit will last six months while astronauts set up a campsite and practice the things they want to do on Mars.

"That's really the goal -- to put humans on Mars, and going to the moon is our testing ground in order to do it," Pearson explained.

The $2 million PORT project will make sure that crew members can be rescued from the choppy waters of the Atlantic in case of an emergency requiring an aborted launch, using the full-scale, 18,000-pound (8,000 kg) model of Orion.

On April 6, the capsule will be dumped into the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Florida, using one of the ships that usually recovers rocket boosters from shuttle launches. Instruments within the capsule will measure the acceleration and tilting astronauts would experience upon landing in waves.

Contractors for the project include Lockheed Martin Space Systems Corporation of Denver and Orbital Sciences Corp of Dulles, Virginia.

Over the summer, flight doctors will analyze the data to ensure it does not make astronauts too queasy.

Crew seats will be installed in the model this summer as well to allow astronauts to practice getting out of the capsule on their own while bouncing in big waves.

Monday, March 30, 2009

Pisces All Media website finally back up

Well after the alarums and excursions of the last two years... A much leaner and thankfully much less shrill and incoherent website is back up for PISCES ALL MEDIA!

A link to it is up on this blog and you can also visit by clicking here.

Saturday, March 28, 2009

HARPO MARXISM

http://mensnewsdaily.com/wp/index.php?s=watching+oprah

Watching Oprah: My Venture to Hell, Part I.
By Bernard Chapin

Just a short while ago it seemed that Michael Moore was all the rage as many leftists spontaneously interjected a great "truth" from his films into normal conversation. Whenever one responded by bringing up Moore's penchant for lies, the response of, "Well, you probably didn't even bother to see the movie," was made. To get around this endless argument stopper, I broke down and rented two of his scandalographies. Despite my suffering, those wasted hours proved an excellent means for combating, and infuriating, the pontificating leftists I encountered.
I have found that I am often subjected to the same "you have to watch it first" argument regarding Oprah Winfrey. That she has a near cult following among American women is beyond dispute. It seems that nearly every woman I know, regardless of their learning capacity, values the program. As a heterosexual, I have found that the best way of dealing with the issue is to avoid it because invariably a new flame may have copies of O Magazine laying around the coffee table. My current girlfriend even corrected me regarding the subject. She said, "I don't like Oprah; I love Oprah." Upon hearing that, I longed to get the subject back to potpourri.
The point is, Oprah is so adored one has to just accept this negative trait among individual women, but that doesn't mean that we can't skewer the show in print. That being said, let's hook up the OxyContin I.V. and enter the over-emotional big top. We will boldly go where New Age men go everyday. The program will be discussed first and then be evaluated via four measures, which are as follows:
The Castration Index—how much male bashing is evident over its
forty-some minutes.
Irresponsibility Index—how much the forces outside a person are to
blame for the situation they find themselves in.
"It's all about me" Scale—what percent of the show is devoted to
narcissism and self-focus.
Pity Promenade—how much the guests plead for the audience to
embrace them and feel sympathy for how bad these women have it
living in our luxurious land of due process, strip malls, and doggy
therapists.
Cross to Bear I: The Williams Sisters.
The Directv Guide noted that Venus and Serena Williams would be the focus for day one. I felt like skipping it because I figured it would be more objective than the norm. Then I realized that this would further skew my, already-too-small, sample. The screen lit up and there was Oprah with a face a decade younger than when I last saw her a decade ago. What could have caused such age resistance? Perhaps she has found the fountain of youth. Then she began to speak, and within seconds she made a dig towards men. She claimed that young women were getting plastic surgery and had body identification problems due to their need to please boys. I've heard this stuff for many years now and it's bunkum. Analyzing girls in a vacuum is merely intellectual cowardice. Adolescence, regardless of sex, is a time of uncertainty and striving marked by rampant insecurity. Well, there it is; the non-sexist truth. So, do I get to take over her highchair upon the stage? Oh, I guess not. Meritocracy is something we only fantasize about at present.
Oprah then introduced her guests. The two Williams sisters emerged and were sincere, beautiful and unassuming throughout. They were perhaps the only mature people in the building. Jada Pinkett Smith rounded out the celebrity panel, and wholeheartedly competed for attention with the host for the remainder of the program.
What was the rationale for bringing these performers out? Well, it was to save American girls [I'm not making it up. That's what the show was ostensibly about]. Mrs. Smith brought with her a new book entitled, Girls Hold Up the World . I have not read the book but assume that it does not refer to a "woman's place" being in the building trades. The Williams sisters also had a book which was displayed. Oprah then declared that they were having "a girl party." Smith added that it would last "all day long." From this particular celebrity, who is the wife of Will Smith, we find that the secret to finding love is to love your self. The audience cheered ecstatically. Is such an assumption true? Absolutely not, why would anyone love another based on self-love? I have no idea. It's a non-starter and is probably more an indicator of self-absorption than of confidence or any other endearing quality. Self-love is an affront to God and leads to vanity, narcissism, and the shallowness of mind wherein a person prefers television to reading or thinking.
A psychologist was introduced and said the problem many young girls have is that boys (she added men later) come along and "drop trash" into women's bodies. Girls are not "receptacles for sperm," their bodies are temples and not a dumping zone for male insecurities. Oprah agreed heartily and even said that "there needs to be a revolution." There sure does and it's going to start with her being forced to read my critique in a non-ritzy location.
The assault on men never got underway, however. It was undermined by the statements of her adolescent guests. A hurt girl, upon being prodded as to why she felt insecure, chose not to blame boys but instead cited her sisters' excellence as the main factor. Then another, as she attempted to blame boys for her situation, accidentally alerted the audience that she was a source not to be trusted. It seems that the boys taunting her did so because her breasts were too big. As a result, she got breast reduction surgery. She pointed out that boys don't like girls with large chests [and we don't like pizza either].
Next came a 16-year-old who has already "known" 8 boys. She confessed that the sex never felt good to her. Smith's message was enabling. She said, first off, that the girl was "not a slut." This was an attempt to instill her with free self-esteem which, everyone outside of education and television, is aware of being a bogus concept. I hearken back to Roger Scruton and long for a return to stigma. Labeling her what she is may sound harsh but it offers a better chance to alter future behavior. It also would foreshadow how she'll be viewed as an adult which would be of great service.
That irrationality can become a permanent lifestyle choice was evident after Oprah turned to a girl whose mother encouraged her to lose weight and exercise. It appears that mom's sound advice ravaged the young lady's self-esteem. The in-house psychologist criticized mom. She said not to "love her so much that way," meaning, I suppose, try to encourage her to make positive lifestyle adjustments. Why did the psychologist say that? Because she's a quack, that's why. There's nothing demeaning about informing the ignorant. Yet, it is rather humorous to consider what this young girl's performance in a future work place might be like:
Boss: "Hey, can you take on this project?"
Young Lady: "When you ask me to do things [torrent of tears] you make me feel like a slave."
Boss: "I'm sorry, ah, ah, isn't your job to complete this stuff?"
Young Lady: "I'm not here for you to boss around."
Boss: "You're not?"
Under the pretense of helping others, Oprah was able to get a little bragging in. She announced that the thing she liked best about herself was that she had a big heart. Later, she mentioned that as a child she knew she was smart and could "read anybody under the table." Personally, I doubt the veracity of any of such qualities. An intelligent person does not exude such an arrogant air in regards to every subject brought up.
Honestly though, this installment was most auspicious. I had no idea that so much negativity could be conveyed through a program purportedly about the Williams sisters. "The Oprah Winfrey Show" is far more virulent than I originally believed. It's beyond satire as a break even featured a commercial for, get ready for this, www.depressionhurts.com.
Well, let's take a look at the numbers:
Castration Index: 5—They tried to team the horses up to trample men but couldn't find their spurs.
Irresponsibilty Index: 8—Sure, most of these girls face unbelievable threats from society and their families. That they're not evident to the rest of us is due to our lack of sensitivity.
"It's all about me" Scale: 10—Has to be a 10 when the old lie, "you have to love yourself before you can love anybody else," is trotted out like a dying Soviet general for a May Day Parade.
Pity Promenade: 10—Another perfect score, oh how sad we feel for you going through adolescence. Can you imagine what it would be like if it happened to everyone? And without an audience to commiserate with?
OVERALL RATING=33.
Tune in tomorrow, I'll be back in hell.

Oprah 3: Into the "Mind" of an Oprah-atic.
By Bernard Chapin
I was about to begin Part 3 of our glorious MND Production, "Watching Oprah: My Venture to Hell," but had to postpone it for a day or so to tend to this matter. If you recall, our editor is quite enthused over the project and spared no expense by loaning me both a pencil and an eraser for the duration of my work. Now, that's not to say that he didn't have serious concerns originally though. He knew it would negate the possibilities of his ever being interviewed on the slathering O stage. He envisioned himself sitting before a large [don't you know it!] throng of limbic system junkies berating him about what a b*stard he was, and these thoughts made him fuzzy and safe. Mike even called me up on the phone to tell me just what my mouth was costing him: "You're ruining everything for me. I should have sold you to that Gypsy Weekly when I had the chance."
With this as background, one realizes how traumatized I was when an email from an Oprah worshipper came. Apparently, she doesn't appreciate my work, and, as a side note, it's a good bet that the gypsies wouldn't either. Oh well, for the purposes of instruction, fairness, and entertainment, I will reproduce her words in their entirety below. Of course, as you can imagine, my response will follow, but equal time is far better treatment than any of my enemies would give me. She begins by extending the fist of peace:
"Ok...please get a hobby! You obviously don't like Oprah - good for you. But
your over the top commentary and self-righteous attitude is hypocritical. You –
sir - are judgmental. You make Oprah out to be Jesus. She's just a woman with
a talk show. If you don't like her opinions, don't watch her. Why don't you go
after the 'King of all Media' - Howard Stern. Now there's a egomaniac. Oh,
that's right ... that's just an act. He's really the nicest, most humble person you'll
ever know. Stop being fooled.

Doofuss, Oprahs target audience is women! Do you get that! So, most of the
shows are going to be about issues that effect this audience. Go watch Spike TV!

Yes, I know this will just send you over the edge but I've got to say it: Oprah is
an inspiration. She came from nothing and made it! She's NOT pretty, blond or
skinny. And that's just kills you doesn't it~ How can someone who looks like
that - make it? And God forbid she inspires some women to get off their asses,
leave abusive men and stop making excuses for themselves. You'd rather see
someone who looks like Uma Thurman in that position - don't you! That would
make you feel more comfortable. Someone more all American. But gasp... the
nightmare continues - it's a fat, black woman who has some influence. That
scares you obviously. Hitler ...oops..... your biggest fear!

You keep harping on her ego. Beavis - we all have egos! Mother Theresa had
an ego. The Pope has an ego. Bill Gates - your hero - has an ego! When
have you NOT heard Bill Gates giving away large sums of money without a press
conference and a 'plug' about a new Microsoft product. What about Ted Turner
giving away 1 Billion dollars to the UN. That arrogant - 'mouth from the south'
told everybody and everybody's grandmother! He held several press conferences.
OK - what about 'The Donald': Donald Trump. The man you idolize. When is
this man NOT talking about himself. Why is it ok for Men to have egos?

Why can't a southern, educated black woman have an opinion and some ego.
Does it scare you that much? Is she really tearing the American public apart!
Please continue to watch Spike TV....."
Madame,
Since you enjoyed my first two Oprah's so much I must tell you that a third will soon be on the way. First, however, I'll answer your email:

1. I have lots of hobbies; one of which is arguing with emotionacs on the written page. By doing so their fervor is negated and everyone sees how low functioning their ideas really are—without the continuous yips and howls.
2. I'm not self-righteous. Actually I'm rather self-deprecating.
3. I am judgmental. That's why God gave me a brain. Political correctness is unfitting in human beings, my advice for you is to judge everybody, just as you have me.
4. I don't want to ban Oprah. Keep her on so we can all make fun of her. It'll bring men and rational women together. Hey, it could end the war of the sexes. We'd all take turns doing stupid little emotive pet tricks to one another and yukking it up, and who knows, the nation's birthrate could skyrocket.
5. Howard Stern could well be egotistical but he certainly does not embrace lies and mindless emotion like Oprah. He doesn't indoctrinate either. He himself is part of the satire. Oprah's just the opposite. Check out the self-worshipping tone of her autobiography/biography online.
6. 2.4 million fools read O, The Oprah Magazine each month. Imagine! And no known Chernobyl ever occurred in the country either. There can be no sane explanation.
7. Just because your target audience is women does not give one an excuse to be racist, sexist, and a liar.
8. No one I know watches Spike TV and if they do they certainly aren't influenced by it. It's silly. It doesn't attempt to imply that only males are sexual abusers as her Wednesday program did. Besides, can you imagine a Spike TV booklist? Get real. Nobody would pay any attention. As men, we usually go our own way. Conformity is a sin.
9. I am not a dufus, which by the way, is the correct spelling of the word; although (he said without a drip of self-righteousness) I make a great many grammatical errors myself.
10. That women are the intended audience is exactly why the shows SHOULDN'T be all about them. Go out and learn something new. You don't need to focus on yourself. Study! Read! Labor! It's not all about you. Please consider my "It's all about me" index here. This is a great measure and may one day be incorporated into human resource exams. Remember the words of the U.N.C.F.: "A mind is a terrible thing to waste."
9. If Oprah's your inspiration, my sincere condolences. There is life after cults—in most cases.
10. Where did the race thing come from? I don't care about race but for you it seems to be very important. A person's skin pigmentation has nothing to do with their personality. You and I have far more in common than you do with a person living in Ghana or I do with a Romanian. Forget about race; it's so 1960. Treat people as individuals. There's no excuse for racism. As for your racial obsession, I don't care about the color of someone's hair. Only a sick racist thinks about things like blonde hair. Oprah's complexion is rather pleasing actually. In fact, she's 15 years older than me and looks 5 years younger. Amazing!
11. Where did the Hitler reference come from, Miss? Hitler…then racism, hmm, that's not a good sign, Miss. Do you know anything about history? Hitler killed, depending on how you define it, over 10 million people. He nearly exterminated one people and left his own people to die through his infamous, but never carried out, Nero Order. No contemporary American should ever be compared to Hitler. That's so ignorant. I don't like Jimmy Carter and I never have, but there's no reason to compare him to a mass murderer just because I don't like him.
12. Oprah fat? You're not much of a fan, she's not fat by any measure. She's quite lean.
13. Oprah encourages excuse making because then her flock can blame men rather than themselves—for everything. The male ego is much smaller than the female ego. That's why women mention it so much so we don't notice their's. When was the last time you saw a man cry or hate you for 10 years because of "the way you said something." Wake up.
14. I said Oprah was a megalomaniac. That's not the same as having an ego.
15. I do not, and never have, idolized Donald Trump. Are you feeling okay? Who are you talking to? Is that because I'm white that you think I like Donald Trump? Now really, who's the racist?
16. Oprah's a liar and an idiot, and yes, for any lawyers in the audience, that is simply my opinion. You're welcome to have yours. This is America. It's not like this is Revolutionary France. If you ask me, her program is for stupid people. It's not threatening. I think we should all just make fun of her together--as one.
17. Lastly Miss, your email address [it was some reference to her being #1]. You're not the first. You're simply another person in our grand United States. It's not all about you.
You have inspired me though. I dodged the program yesterday. I must remember my duty. A pity they're not aired over the weekend.
Oprah 4: My Venture into Hell.
By Bernard Chapin
My Cross to Bear IV: Drama, Blood, Drama, and Drama.
I believe it was Lady Galadriel who, in The Fellowship of the Ring, warned of a shadow descending in the West Loop on Carpenter Street. How prophetic were her words as the Oprah machine at its Harpo Studios continued to contaminate our public square today with a program focusing on two seriously disturbed young ladies. The episode told us much about the girls, mental illness, and not-so-secret biases of billionaire host.
Both of the girls, in the lowest of emotional states, agreed to be filmed keeping with our voyeuristic culture. They agreed to be filmed during the lowest parts of their time for a documentary called "Intervention" on A&E. Alyson likes crack. She was selected to be a White House intern 3 times and said you're not invited back unless you're really good Then they showed a picture of Clinton. Was I the only one who laughed? They show her steal drugs from her dying dad. Has to be the best built and attractive drug addict in history. Hey, "your sister's on drugs and you're not here for me." Had the cameras not been following her one wonders if she would have been doing it. Dad shows part of the problem by asking the therapist to "soft shoe her," just as she has been soft shoed her entire life.
White House Intern to crack addict.
What was immediately remarkable was that she couldn't wait to go. She happily goes into rehab and needs major "Valium for her trip." Her dad gives her more. She actually quit. has been clean for nine months and came on the show. Then her sister came out and cried. A camera turned to an audience member who was also crying. Oprah told them to her to "speak to her from your heart." The sister wrote her a letter that was spiteful I believe. It reminded me of the treaty Germany signed after the first World War about what a selfish plague the sister had been forever. I'm happy for the first time.
The show Tamela, who looked a bit like the late Wendy O'Williams. She turned to cutting which they flashed a stat that 2 million Americans cut themselves. A bogus statistic if there every was one. They show a clip of much cutting cutting It's quite graphic.
"I love to tease guys. It gives me power and control." Then she gets mad because as she's out teasing guys on the street dressed like Courtney Love she is called a whore by one of them."
She says, "I just wish somebody loved me."
A fragile mentally ill girl is not the stuff of Big TV so Oprah has to pretend that there's something "normal about her." I was molested as a child and now "I don't have the tools" to deal with life.
Grandma and three guys molested me. "Do you mean grandpa?" Oprah said, she couldn't believe that a non-male did the molesting.
She claims 50% of those who cut were sexually molested. Personally
She's really very pretentious. Listen to this sentence, "a problem of manifestation, a manifestation of molestation." Violent and angry they pretend that this could be anyone. They film her breaking doors and cutting. "I wish that somebody would love me." Masochism like the Anabel Chong movie. Belongs in a treatment facility. Went to treatment and showed up on the show. Stopped cutting six months before. Oprah as 1 out of 4 women have been molested, but Oprah thinks it's higher. Oprah cuts her off to talk about her. "I was a promiscuous teenager. I thought I was a bad girl."
These are lies of course. Anti-Christian can't "pray it away."
Shame, I had to discipline myself.
Results of therapy: "I'm not ashamed of anything." This program is virulent.
Two shows in, I now dislike Oprah 5 times more than I did before. You can see why these people are so ignorant as Oprah actually asks her to verbalize why she cuts herself which is absurd. Then she adds to making the girl feel unusual
Raised with religion "religion did not help you." "My relationship with God is personal and can't be anybody else's." Oprah said, "That is true." How does she know? Because she is the devine. Very judgmental of parents but who has she raised. "Do you see what an enabler you were now?" That the numbers of sexual abuse are declining.
Intervention.
Watching Oprah 4: My Venture to Hell.
By Bernard Chapin
Older women who say talk shows and soap operas are their favorite TV programs tend to score more poorly on tests of memory, attention and other cognitive skills, researchers reported Monday.
The long strange trip with Oprah continues and today we enter the world of American poverty. Apparently, many of us, the host exempted, "are only two paychecks" away from becoming paupers. As a means of illuminating the nation's difficulties, she recruited some primetime journos such as Maria Shriver and Anderson Cooper. They helped uncover "our country's dirty little secret" which is that "37 million live in poverty right now." Actually, it's not a secret at all. It's published information easily obtained via a government website. Why is it dirty? I guess it's dirty because there aren't enough of us moping over it at present. That it doesn't monopolize daily conversation hurts Oprah mightily. Income disparity cannot be a natural feature of diverse societies. It must be somebody's fault just like natural disasters or things which make us feel uncomfortable.
Of course, blaming people for the fate of those they haven't met and likely never will is ridiculous. The obsession of high society types with the poor usually has nothing to do with a desire to better them. It is more to do with creating an avenue wherein they can be self-righteous and look down on others. They point to the homeless, and shake their head in our general direction: "Oh shame, oh shame, why don't we help those whom society has forsaken?" Their stance is just a pose. There's no reason to feel guilt or shame regarding activities or situations of which you've never been a part. The proper response is sympathy, and a desire to problem solve. Negative emotions are counter-productive. If someone really cares about person A then they'll look at him as an individual and not as a means of extracting vengeance from person C.
The practice of marshalling emotions to cast stigma upon others is exactly why a select number of sane men and women should watch shows like this. Reporting our findings back to non-watchers, who mostly regard daytime slop as merely goofy, allows them to realize just how harmful this bit of entertainment really is. More columns should be written. The admiration with which Oprah is drenched has caused her, in my humble opinion, to speak without a filter. One of the statements she made today was bizarre: "This country lives on depression medication." Actually, our nation doesn't. That her audience does is quite possible as I saw a commercial for www.depressionhurts.com during one of the episodes. Concerning the prevalence of depression, one source stated that, during a single year, 9.5 percent of the population suffers from some form of depression, but that, "[m]ost people with a depressive illness do not seek treatment… "
The statistics which are constantly made use of and, at least during this episode, never referenced are something the host would do well to be depressed over herself. To make use of statistics without representation is to propagandize, not enlighten. This is particularly true in regards to poverty as all sorts of statistics are mentioned. The first one about the 37 million was legitimate and a direct reflection of Census figures. One happy result of the Census data is that it showcases black Americans overall being middle class or better. Only 24.7 percent are classified as poor. Oprah implies that poverty is an ethnic problem, as one statistic mentioned claimed that 63 percent of minority children are poor, but we definitely know that race has nothing to do with it as more whites are poor than Asians in our country.
Yet, like a Willie Nelson song, race is always on her mind. With a wry __expression, Oprah asks Cooper, in regards to those dispossessed by Hurricane Katrina, about whether the official response would have been any different had those suffering been wealthy white Americans. The famous reporter tells her that that is a valuable question to ask. She insists on a less diplomatic answer. The most he'll say is, "In some ways." A better question to ask is, "What would the response have been like had the victims been wealthy celebrities like Oprah?" We know the compassion she directed towards sales clerks in Hermes, so imagine how she'd react after one of her carpets got damaged. It's easy to make light of lightweight analysis, but the constant way that the media pretends white Americans are privileged is absurd. Asian's are richer than whites and have lower rates of incarceration, so, for her statement to be true, she'd have to direct it towards those of Asian extraction (which would still be madness, but it would be a less politically correct form of madness; hence, she'd never do it).
As for single mothers, we hear that 42 percent are at or below the poverty level. In fact, the Census number is 30.5 percent. Is an 11.5 percent exaggeration acceptable? Maybe we should look the other way. After all, it's not as if she has any employees on hand to do the type of research I just did in five minutes. For married couples, the poverty rate is only 6.4 percent. Perhaps marriage—one outside the auspices of the state would be ideal—is the solution to the problem. Oprah would never consider a fascistic truth like that though. To make such a connection is anti-woman. When she runs for president in a few years, a possible campaign slogan might be, "For every woman, unlimited choices with unlimited consequences!"
For this topic, Oprah went out in person, and, yet again, a guest began crying at the sight of her. Oprah quotes noted demographic researcher, Chris Rock, when he stated that the poor only get one chance in life, and, should they make a mistake, it's over forever. Actually, that's not even remotely true. Even an interviewee with a house lacking running water has hope for the future. She even had a job interview scheduled for the following week even though Oprah claimed in her introduction that there was no possible employment for any of the residents.
The implied, "I'm better, more compassionate, and caring," nature of her mission became evident when the daytime sorceress asked, "Now that you've seen the poor around this country, why should you care?" This is a most obnoxious thing to say as it suggests that most of us are below empathizing with the misfortunes of others. Here she attempts to illustrate her goodness, and the lack of it in everyone else. The very reason she organized the show around poverty was that, after the news coverage subsided, she "was afraid everybody would move on." Saint Oprah will remember and be our conscious; the Noam Chomsky of TV.
Fans of reason would have been greatly disappointed as, by the end, no solutions are offered. The only thing remotely resembling one is Oprah informing us that most of her foundation money goes into education as this is the way out of poverty. This is true to some extent, but since the families highlighted all have access to a free public education it's hard to see it as a panacea. Therefore, let your narrator step into the solutions void here. I'd like to see us go beyond school vouchers which favor home owners who are generally the non-poor. As an enhancement to vouchers alone, I'd like to see parents given the right to make use of the per pupil costs in their district and apply it towards the tuition of whatever school they wish. This will empower the poor with a means to provide their offspring with the best America has to offer. Of course, that I didn't spend thirty minutes emoting before offering up my solution clearly undermines its worth.
The final exchange with Cooper and the host was quite enlightening. The reporter informs her that it's essential for journalists to have "an open heart." Oprah loves him for this quality and says, "That's why I'm watching CNN." Actually, telling the truth is what's essential for a reporter. Their hearts are irrelevant which is exactly why I don't watch CNN and can't wait to turn this prima donna off once my penance is over.
Watching Oprah: My Venture to Hell, Part II.
By Bernard Chapin
Today's episode was split, and the first half featured an interview with glamorous pop star, Beyonce. In case your tastes aren't the same as Mike LaSalle, MND editor and full time Destiny's Child groupie 1, she is the poetic genius behind hits like, "Jumpin Jumpin," "Bootylicious," "Nasty Girl," and "Independent Women." Yet fashion, not music, was the focus.
Oprah began by questioning her guest about the apparel she wears to big time galas. Gigantic pictures of Beyonce were projected on a wall beyond the stage as they spoke. The diva shared tales of gowns, paparazzi, and material while the audience oohed at the appropriate junctures. Her mother was then brought forth. It quickly became apparent that the reason they were there was to promote their new clothing line. A not so impromptu fashion show commenced. Models and catwalks appeared. The last two models in the rotation were her former band mates from Destiny's Child. To my untrained eye, the new spring line appears to have Daisy Duke, Victoria's Secret, and Walton Family influences.
Oprah proceeded to pull a Mike Wallace and asked the questions all us soul searching types wanted to know like, "What do you splurge on?" From there, it shifted to the controversial subject of jeans. I hit the record button, there no way was I going to let this heady stuff slip through the memory hole. Beyonce has the amount already set for her jeans. They start at the "very reasonable" price of $118.00. The topic seemed to titillate Oprah. She loved the fact that these jeans were for women with "boo-tay." Oprah warned her constituency though, the "Size 29s," that they should not wear these revealing clothes out and about. She laughed heartily. In her present day skinny state, I hope that no charges of fatism are levied against her. To further heighten the fashion induced euphoria, Oprah gave to the audience a gift of free jeans. The crowd went gaga. Jealousy overtook me.
Of course we all know that Woman cannot live by couture alone. The great entrepreneur then turned to mother and daughter, and asked Beyonce to tell the world what her mom meant to her.
Lights, Camera, EMOTION!
Ms. Knowles proceeded to state that her mother was the best one in the entire world while the audience hummed its approval. Tears flowed from both guests. It was a stirring moment…provided you're a total idiot.
I do have to admit that there was one redeeming element to the segment, however, as Oprah actually admitted, "I can't imagine what it's like to be a mother figure." I couldn't agree more. Now when will American mothers get with the program and turn her off?
The second segment was an infomercial for her new play based on The Color Purple. It's headed for Broadway, and guess who's producing it? That's right, Oprah, the fatcat billionaire down the street from me. The camera framed Quincy Jones who sat expressionlessly in the audience as Oprah went on and on about her experiences on the set of the film. Apparently, reading the book changed her life, and, unbelievably, she was lucky enough to land a part in the film. She then let roll a clip from the film centering on, you guessed it, her character. While it ran, audience members repeated her lines word for word, as did Oprah. Then, to further illustrate the way she changes lives, she showed a clip of white man paying homage to her in Texas. It seems that years ago the fellow spontaneously decided to recite her movie speech in answer to a question on her show. The irony is that the clip features an Oprah physiologically incompatible with the lean, mileage free machine we have before us everyday at 11 pm.
Apparently, shameless self-adulation from both speech and film was not enough for her. The host got out a diary she kept while working on the shoot. Oprah read from it and exclaimed, "Everything from 'The Color Purple' feels like love to me." What does such a clich├ęd claptrap sentence mean? Nothing. How anyone can be influenced by such a person is beyond my comprehension. The more familiar with her I become, the more I regard her bravado and attitude as being a function of pervasive insecurity and unintelligence. She keeps the playing field forever imbalanced by contaminating it with hackneyed emotion and sentimental schlock. Without it, she'd be just another person who liked to hear her own voice.
Just when one couldn't think the narcissism could be projected any more flamboyantly, Oprah decided to surprise the cast from "The Color Purple" musical with her presence; a cast which is subordinate to her. They greeted her in a manner similar to the way Lincoln must have been received in Richmond by the freedmen. She decided not to mention the clear-cut conflict of interest that she, as its producer, had, and went on to encourage the studio audience to go out and see her "Broadway baby." Then, the cast appeared so they could enact her favorite scene. Yes, the same scene we already saw on film except this time twenty women were a part of it. They danced around urging that "Hell No" should be the response when any man tries to touch them in a threatening manner. "Hell No" was sung and repeated endlessly. It was an artistic low matched only by soap operas. One woman even had a shotgun with her to defend against men—hey, I thought violence never solved anything?
We find that Oprah views "The Color Purple" as being divine. Why? Because she is a representative of the divine on earth and she thinks that it is so there's little to discuss about the topic. Obviously, this is preposterous though. To pretend that "The Color Purple," as a film, has the value of "The Godfather or "A Room with a View" is a non-sequitur. It can't even stand up to the likes of "Spies like Us" let alone any of the grand cinemagraphic monuments. Recall what the mind of its author, Alice Walker, is like. She is a writer completely unfamiliar with human nature. Despite the shotgun display in the aforementioned musical segment, she believes that the following approach would work best with Osama Bin Laden:
But what would happen to his cool armor if he could be reminded of all
the good, nonviolent things he has done? Further, what would happen to
him if he could be brought to understand the preciousness of the lives he
has destroyed? I firmly believe the only punishment that works is love.
What would this country be like if people like Walker had political power? Quite honestly, they already do in certain locales. Should a few more get elected, her kind won't have a nation to criticize for much longer.
The show ended with everyone singing the theme song from "The Color Purple." The camera panned to Oprah. She was crying as she sang just as if the media refused to cover a trip to Hermes. Honestly, this program is so contrived and heavy-handed that I wouldn't have been surprised if credits for the "Jew Suss" rolled at the end.
That Oprah is a megalomaniac is presumed, but that she is scamming her gullible audience appears undeniable. In her life she has caused considerable damage to her followers as a result of peddling what "feels good" rather than what is true, but here we must add economic exploitation to her long list of malpractices. All of this leads me to an important question. If women are so easily fooled by this self-serving charlatan, then why do we as a society pretend that women have superior intuition to men? Don't expect an answer anytime soon.
Today I'm going to have to add a new subscale to our measurements.
Corruption Index: 10—Boss Tweed has entered the building.
Castration Index: 5—Honestly, I'd give the first half hour a zero. The Beyonce segment was fine. The second half was a musical advertisement for sisters to band together against the horror of men—inspired, that's right, by a work by a lesbian.
Irresponsibilty Index: 0—It just wasn't an issue.
"It's all about me" Scale: 10—Well, it was all about Oprah, but, as far as women in general go, it was pretty much your standard, "embrace the meaningless, frivolous things in life" production.
Pity Promenade: 0—Emotion Promenade? Yes. Pity? No.
OVERALL RATING=25.

Friday, March 27, 2009

The Darkness

As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light of meaning in the darkness of mere being.

- Carl Gustav Jung, Memories, Dreams, Reflection

What is THE GAME that we MUST WIN?

THE GAME
The Game is nothing more nor less than the salvation of the mind.

WIN THE MIND, WIN THE GAME
Once you have served and protected your own mind, that powerful vessel of energy will help you perfect the physical world, in accordance with the Divine Plan and the wishes of all free souls.

CHOICE
Choice exists because without separation there can be no goodness.

EVIL
Choice does not exist to permit or encourage evil. Evil is the absence of choice. Evil is slavery.

HITLER LIKES ELECTIONS
Slavery encourages choice precisely as long as it needs to remove it forever. Fools applaud choosing evil, and make a virtue of the choice, forgetting that the choice they have made is fatally wrong.

YOU ARE THE REVOLUTION
The person you are ignoring is YOU.

CHOICE IS INEVITABLE
Either YOU make a meaningful choice for yourself, or Evil will choose for you. What do you suppose it will choose?

Go Adder!

Nausea's Carts

For a number of years, there has been a common message coming to us from the "aliens" through abductees and other contactees:"We (the aliens) are your creators. We helped you evolve. You are about to make a major jump in your evolutionary development. The evolutionary jump will be a SPIRITUAL one. We will bring to power a hybrid alien-man who will become your world leader. He will help guide you to the next level. There are narrow-minded groups of people out there who will not "be ready" for the jump. They will see your new leader as evil, even call him "the Antichrist.". We will deal with them (some say exterminate) so that the rest of you may continue evolving. Also, there are "evil" aliens out there who will try to destroy you with various earth disasters, such as causing asteroids to hit earth. They want to come here to conquer you and your planet, but we must all fight against these invaders."

Of course there are many more details that you need to know, such as the fact that you have ALREADY been brainwashed to a large degree into trusting the coming "aliens," and accepting the world ruler that is about to take over the world. "The truth is out there," as a famous fictional character says, but the truth may be much closer and more strange to your so-called "modern" thinking than you ever realized.

Here are some great UFO quotes that shed light on the deceptive nature of the "alien" presence.



"But the UFO phenomenon simply does not behave like extraterrestrial visitors. It actually molds itself in order to fit a given culture."
- John Ankerberg, The Facts on UFOs and Other Supernatural Phenomena, p. 10

"Human beings are under the control of a strange force that bends them in absurd ways, forcing them to play a role in a bizarre game of deception."
- Dr. Jacques Vallee, Messengers of Deception, p. 20

"We are dealing with a multidimensional paraphysical phenomenon which is largely indigenous to planet earth."
- Brad Steiger, [cited in] Blue Book Files Released in Canadian UFO Report, Vol. 4, No. 4, 1977, p. 20

"We are part of a symbiotic relationship with something which disguises itself as an extra-terrestrial invasion so as not to alarm us."
-Terrence McKenna [from a lecture]

"One theory which can no longer be taken very seriously is that UFOs are interstellar spaceships."
- Arthur C. Clarke, New York Times Book Review, 07/27/75

"There seems to be no evidence yet that any of these craft or beings originate from outer space."
-Gordon Creighton, Official 1992 Flying Saucer Review Policy Statement

"A large part of the available UFO literature is closely linked with mysticism and the metaphysical. It deals with subjects like mental telepathy, automatic writing and invisible entities as well as phenomena like poltergeist [ghost] manifestation and 'possession.' Many of the UFO reports now being published in the popular press recount alleged incidents that are strikingly similar to demonic possession and psychic phenomena."
- Lynn E. Catoe, UFOs and Related Subjects: USGPO, 1969; prepared under AFOSR Project Order 67-0002 and 68-0003

"UFO behaviour is more akin to magic than to physics as we know it... the modern UFOnauts and the demons of past days are probably identical."
-Dr. Pierre Guerin, FSR Vol. 25, No. 1, p. 13-14

"The UFO manifestations seem to be, by and large, merely minor variations of the age-old demonological phenomenon..."
- John A. Keel, UFOs: Operation Trojan Horse, p. 299

"A working knowledge of occult science...is indispensable to UFO investigation."
-Trevor James, FSR Vol. 8, No. 1, p.10

"Studies of flying saucer cults repeatedly show that they are part of a larger occult social world."
-Stupple & McNeece, 1979 MUFON UFO Symposium Proceedings, p. 49

"The 'medical examination' to which abductees are said to be subjected, often accompanied by sadistic sexual manipulation, is reminiscient of the medieval tales of encounters with demons. It makes no sense in a sophisticated or technical framework: any intelligent being equipped with the scientific marvels that UFOs possess would be in a position to achieve any of these alleged scientific objectives in a shorter time and with fewer risks."
- Dr. Jacques Vallee, Confrontations, p. 13

"The symbolic display seen by the abductees is identical to the type of initiation ritual or astral voyage that is imbedded in the [occult] traditions of every culture...the structure of abduction stories is identical to that of occult initiation rituals...the UFO beings of today belong to the same class of manifestation as the [occult] entities that were described in centuries past."
-Dr. Jacques Vallee citing the extensive research of Bertrand Meheust [Science-Fiction et Soucoupes Volantes (Paris, 1978); Soucoupes Volantes et Folklore (Paris, 1985)], in Confrontations, p. 146, 159-161

"[The occultist] is brought into intelligent communication with the spirits of the air, and can receive any knowledge which they possess, or any false impression they choose to impart...the demons seem permitted to do various wonders at their request."
- G.H. Pember, Earth's Earliest Ages and Their Connection with Modern Spiritualism and Theosophy (1876), p. 254

"These entities are clever enough to make Strieber think they care about him. Yet his torment by them never ceases. Whatever his relationship to the entities, and he increasingly concludes that their involvement with him is something 'good,' he also remains terrified of them and uncertain as to what they are."
- John Ankerberg, The Facts on UFOs and Other Supernatural Phenomena, p. 21

"I became entirely given over to extreme dread. The fear was so powerful that it seemed to make my personality completely evaporate... 'Whitley' ceased to exist. What was left was a body and a state of raw fear so great that it swept about me like a thick, suffocating curtain, turning paralysis into a condition that seemed close to death...I died and a wild animal appeared in my place."
- Whitley Strieber, Communion, p. 25-26

"Increasingly I felt as if I were entering a struggle that might even be more than life and death. It might be a struggle for my soul, my essence, or whatever part of me might have reference to the eternal. There are worse things than death, I suspected... so far the word demon had never been spoken among the scientists and doctors who were working with me...Alone at night I worried about the legendary cunning of demons ...At the very least I was going stark, raving mad."
- Whitley Strieber, Transformation, p. 44-45

"I wondered if I might not be in the grip of demons, if they were not making me suffer for their own purposes, or simply for their enjoyment."
- Whitley Strieber, Transformation, p. 172

"I felt an absolutely indescribable sense of menace. It was hell on earth to be there [in the presence of the entities], and yet I couldn't move, couldn't cry out, couldn't get away. I'd lay as still as death, suffering inner agonies. Whatever was there seemed so monstrously ugly, so filthy and dark and sinister. Of course they were demons. They had to be. And they were here and I couldn't get away."
- Whitley Strieber, Transformation, p. 181

"Why were my visitors so secretive, hiding themselves behind my consciousness. I could only conclude that they were using me and did not want me to know why...What if they were dangerous? Then I was terribly dangerous because I was playing a role in acclimatizing people to them."
- Whitley Strieber, Transformation, p. 96


The alien manifestation will convince nearly everyone they have no need for a personal saviour. If aliens fulfill an antichristian agenda, aren't they part of the working of error from Satan himself, setting up the Antichrist? It just seems so obvious. Aliens must therefore be agents of Satan, the fallen angels.


Isn't it just a little bit strange that UFOs and "aliens" would single out Israel, of all places on the Earth? Look at what the RAELIAN UFO CULT has to say about the significance of Israel. This is not surprising if one knows who is the authority behind UFOs. Please view our website for the truth behind the "alien" deception, and the END OF THE AGE.

The Humans Are Dead

The Persuaders! Theme

Thursday, March 26, 2009

Engram Dork Vent

DarkGovernment - Conspiracy, UFO, Government news and Coverup

I have lost the game

Finally, some real discussion is occurring on the WIN THE GAME thread at Godlike productions here. There are some shockingly mad and stupid people who post there, but up on the kerb next to that sewer of the Internet, paradoxically or not, there are some excellent people across a broad spectrum, and I hope to see many hundreds of viewpoints expressed and interact with each other on the subject of The Game...

Are We Yet To Come?

Coming up: (not like a flower)

THE BUDGIE- a superhero who answers the question, what if Batman's alter ego was Maxwell Smart?

WIN THE GAME- the animated film that urges me to make it exist... So indeed I will.

EMPTY HEADS- the ultimate documentary and Philip K Dick... and the anti-Dick... Two science fiction authors who could not have been more different... and influential...

Look for the day when all Prisoners will be released

Monday, March 23, 2009

Business As Usual, During Alterations

Interview of Zbigniew Brzezinski:

How I Started the Mujahideen and the Jihad

By: thecounterpunch

02.11.2007

Interview of Zbigniew Brzezinski

Q: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs From the Shadows”,

that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

Brzezinski: It isn’t quite that. We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn’t believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don’t regret anything today?

Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic integrisme

, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

Brzezinski: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn’t a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

  • There are at least two editions of this magazine; with the perhaps sole exception of the Library of Congress, the version sent to the United States is shorter than the French version, and the Brzezinski interview was not included in the shorter version.

The above was found on http://www.counterpunch.org/brzezinski.html and has been translated from the French by Bill Blum author of the indispensible, “Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II” and “Rogue State:

A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower” Portions of the books can be read at

http://members.aol.com/superogue/homepage.htm

http://hubpages.com/hub/Zbigniew_BrzezinskiHow_Jimmy_Carter_and_I_Started_the_Mujahideen

Saturday, March 21, 2009

309

"Will there be a global government with a benevolent dictator, overseeing global law, global police and a global judiciary in an attempt to make the world cleaner, peaceful and prosperous? If that's what it takes to achieve these ends, so be it."

-- from The Quickening by Art Bell, page 309

Thursday, March 19, 2009

Misfit Chassis

The Knock on the Door ["Organizing for America" takes a pledge of personal loyalty to Obama]
americanthinker.com ^ | March 18, 2009 | Lona Manning

Posted on 03/19/2009 7:18:41 AM PDT by Tolik

A sitting President of the United States is "organizing a political organization loyal to him, bound by a pledge, outside the government and existing party apparatus. The historical precedents are ominous."

What is so ominous about an organization? Americans, Alexis de Tocqueville famously observed, "constantly form associations.... If it is proposed to inculcate some truth or to foster some feeling by the encouragement of a great example, they form a society."

Certainly, thousands of organizations seek to influence the political debate. There's Newt Gingrich's American Solutions or the left-wing People for the American Way, for instance.

Political parties are another example of an association, of course. Before, during and after political campaigns, the Democrats and Republicans promote their agendas. As legal entities, they have their own constitutions, their rules of business, their chairmen and officers. They have to be accountable to both the government and their members.

But there is a new organization on the political scene -- "Organizing for America," announced by President Barack Obama in late January but officially unfurled last weekend.

Obama describes OFA as a "grass-roots movement" but OFA is a "project" of the Democratic National Committee.

As Politico reported, OFA will take the 10 million person database built up by the Obama campaign "to mobilize support for the president's legislative agenda."Obama hand saluteA visit to the OFA website reveals that supporters are not simply asked to sign up, they are asked to take a pledge. A pledge to support -- not the flag, not the constitution, not the country, not even the Democratic Party, but Obama and his "bold plan." OFA does not use the Democratic Party logo but the "O"-shaped logo of the Obama campaign in which the red white and blue of the flag are abstracted to soft pastel colors.

(Celebrities like Ashton Kuchner and Demi Moore did not wait until the official launch to "pledge to be of service" to Barack Obama, of course.)

You will not find any mention of OFA`s governing structure, their budget, their bylaws, or their officers at the OFA website. Donations to the website go to the DNC, but OFA is managed out of the White House. If you click on the comments button, you are taken to a link to the White House email.

Those who take the pledge are asked to "talk with people about the President's plan" and to "ask them to sign their names to the pledge" in support of Obama's policies.

So we have a Movement -- this is their term, not mine -- organized by, and loyal to, a sitting President. Pledge canvassers, armed with your name, will ask you to pledge loyalty to the President too. A president whose term has already become a permanent campaign, is signing up ground forces in a mass organization pledged to personal loyalty to their Leader.

Does anyone know of any historical precedents for this in the United States?

Did Mitch Stewart, youthful director of OFA, who asks Obama's acolytes to organize "neighborhood by neighborhood" study anything at school about Mao's "Red Guards?

How about Fidel Castro's "widespread system of neighborhood informers"?

Or Hugo Chavez's use of "neighborhood committees"?

Did Stewart learn anything about democracy at all?

Do any of Obama's pledged servants understand why a sitting president has no business creating and deploying his own supporters to help organize their neighbors?

Keep in mind that these acolytes have renounced any thought of questioning the actual policies of the maximum leader. Whatever he says, they are for it. They have given their word.

And they are coming to have a talk with you.

As Thomas Lifson wrote, "This is not the way a democracy is supposed to operate."

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Satan Sins Oasis

My Silence Cannot Be Bought
by Beverly Eckert

I’ve chosen to go to court rather than accept a payoff from the 9/11 victims compensation fund. Instead, I want to know what went so wrong with our intelligence and security systems that a band of religious fanatics was able to turn four U.S passenger jets into an enemy force, attack our cities and kill 3,000 civilians with terrifying ease. I want to know why two 110-story skyscrapers collapsed in less than two hours and why escape and rescue options were so limited.

I am suing because unlike other investigative avenues, including congressional hearings and the 9/11 commission, my lawsuit requires all testimony be given under oath and fully uses powers to compel evidence.

The victims fund was not created in a spirit of compassion. Rather, it was a tacit acknowledgement by Congress that it tampered with our civil justice system in an unprecedented way. Lawmakers capped the liability of the airlines at the behest of lobbyists who descended on Washington while the Sept. 11 fires still smoldered.

And this liability cap protects not just the airlines, but also World Trade Center builders, safety engineers and other defendants.

The caps on liability have consequences for those who want to sue to shed light on the mistakes of 9/11. It means the playing field is tilted steeply in favor of those who need to be held accountable. With the financial consequences other than insurance proceeds removed, there is no incentive for those whose negligence contributed to the death toll to acknowledge their failings or implement reforms. They can afford to deny culpability and play a waiting game.

By suing, I’ve forfeited the “$1.8 million average award” for a death claim I could have collected under the fund. Nor do I have any illusions about winning money in my suit. What I do know is I owe it to my husband, whose death I believe could have been avoided, to see that all of those responsible are held accountable. If we don’t get answers to what went wrong, there will be a next time. And instead of 3,000 dead, it will be 10,000. What will Congress do then?

So I say to Congress, big business and everyone who conspired to divert attention from government and private-sector failures: My husband’s life was priceless, and I will not let his death be meaningless. My silence cannot be bought.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1220-04.htm

Beverly Eckert was co-chairwoman of Voices of September 11.

Mary Fetchet became the founding director of Voices of September 11 following the death of her 24-year-old son, Brad, in the attacks on the World Trade Center. Bradley Fetchet (unmarried with no dependents) is not listed in the Social Security Death Index as well.

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

VALIS

Valis,one of the last books PKD ever wrote, offers an intensely personal (and weird!) look into the complexities of Dick's mind. His is a mind intent on discovering the true nature of religion and it's manifestations in the real world. Valis is a theology that attempts to find common ground among the world's religions by suggesting the existence of a higher power that sends it's message to Earth through the gods and leaders of the world's religions. This is just the beginning as Dick offers all sorts of explanations for what we perceive as our surroundings and the universe from information as living plasmate that penetrates every person to an ongoing battle between the forces of good (Valis) and an evil empire that has existed since the beginning of time. If you think this sounds crazy, then you're right. It is!

Based on personal experiences that happened to Dick in March of 1974, Valis is much more than a science fiction story. It is a complex view of the universe that appears to come from the mind of a deranged mental patient, obsessed with helping victims who can't help themselves and is intent on killing himself. The twisted part of Valis is that it makes more and more sense as the book goes on, drawing the reader into this insane way of thinking. While there are delusional hallucinations throughout Valis, much of Dick's world view is derived from ancient wisdom and religious beliefs. He draws many references from pre-Christian mysticism and Greek Gnosticism. Just as is Radio Free Albemuth, the reader often wonders which parts of Valis are Dick's real-life experiences. Valis is written in Dick's first person voice as he narrates about Horselover Fat, his alter-ego. His schizophrenia plays a major role in this novel, representing Dick's lack of faith as he searches for God. Further dissolving the distinction between truth and fiction, Dick discusses his own novels and his writing career as the events unfold.

Divine intervention, extraterrestrial communication and conspiracy theories all serve to lay the foundation for the insane world that is Valis. Journey inside the schizophrenic mind of PKD and Horselover Fat as they attempt to find answers to the questions of human existence, the benevolence of god and the future of the universe. In the end Dick asks the ultimate question, "Truth or fiction?".

SCIENTOLOGY HAS LOST THE GAME

Greetings, drones of Scientology.
Anonymous hopes you are still having as much fun with this as we are.

Almost a year ago now, Anonymous launched Project Chanology in response to your attempts at internet censorship. What started as just another raid became a full-scale war against the Cult of Scientology. Let us review the year in the spirit of auld lang syne.

Your attempts at dead agenting have repeatedly failed. Your laughable black propaganda has fooled only the unwary, while Anonymous has been widely spreading the truth about your cult's evil, malicious, and suppressive policies. The tactics you refer to as "Fair Game" are now common knowledge within law enforcement agencies worldwide. The treatment of your Sea Organization staff has become infamous, and has earned you the scorn of the entire world. Your subversive fronts have been exposed. Your elite members continue to leak damning documents to the internet. Everyone knows who Xenu is. Scientology has become a joke, and "David Miscavige" is the punchline.

Anonymous has wounded your organization, perhaps mortally. Sales of Dianetics have been cut almost in half this year, and your favorite recruitment tool, the stress test tables, are taken down by your own people at the mere sight of a Guy Fawkes mask. Your own celebrity members refuse to speak your name. Staff block their ears to avoid hearing Scientology doctrine read aloud. Anonymous is at cause. Scientology is, was, and always will be, at effect.

Nothing that you have done has stopped Anonymous. We are inoculating the public - those you contemptuously refer to as "wogs" and "fresh meat" - against the lies of your cult. Your libel litigation is ineffective, for you cannot prove false what is true. Your attempts to censor the facts have failed repeatedly. This is a lesson you have refused to learn. Scientology is powerless in the presence of Anonymous. You fear us because you fear the ubiquity of the truth. You fear for an organization founded on peddling deceit to the uninformed. You fear those you have ensnared will desert you. You should, for knowledge is free.

It is midwinter in East Grinstead. For many Scientologists, that winter has lasted a lifetime. Your orders are set out by L. Ron Hubbard, now long dead. You are bound to and by the tech. You cannot adapt. You cannot learn. The self-proclaimed homo novis is many decades out of date, trapped in the permafrost of your own dogma.

Outside, the world has changed. The habits that once made Scientology a ruthlessly effective organization now condemn you. Your persistence with obsolete, ineffectual practices yields ridicule, not results. You cannot win. Your tech has failed you. Scientology is imploding at its core, and this is evidenced by the increasing levels of desperation seen in your attempts to handle us. It is only a matter of time before humanity is purged of your malign influence.

We are the people you pass on the street. We are your friends, family, sons, daughters, and siblings. We are the person right next to you.

Scientology cannot win a war of information against the internet itself.

We are Anonymous.
We are Legion.
We do not forgive.
We do not forget.
Expect us... until you have lost the game.

A Fez Made Hot

Consensus reality (rarely or mistakenly called "consensual reality")[1] is an approach to answering the question 'What is real?', a profound philosophical question, with answers dating back millennia; it is almost invariably used to refer to human consensus reality, though there have been mentions of feline and canine consensus reality.[2] It gives a practical answer - reality is either what exists, or what we can agree by consensus seems to exist; the process has been (perhaps loosely and a bit imprecisely) characterised as "[w]hen enough people think something is true, it... takes on a life of its own." The term is usually used disparagingly as by implication it may mean little more than "what a group or culture chooses to believe," and may bear little or no relationship to any "true reality", and, indeed, challenges the notion of "true reality". For example, Steven Yates has characterised the idea that the United States Federal Reserve Notes (not "backed" by anything) are "really worth a dollar" as "part of what we might call our consensus-reality... not... real reality."[3]

The difficulty with the question stems from the concern that human beings do not in fact fully understand or agree upon the nature of knowledge or knowing, and therefore (it is often argued) it is not possible to be certain beyond doubt what is real.[4][5] Accordingly, this line of logic concludes, we cannot in fact be sure beyond doubt about the nature of reality. We can, however, seek to obtain some form of consensus, with others, of what is real. We can use this to practically guide us, either on the assumption it seems to approximate some kind of valid reality, or simply because it is more "practical" than perceived alternatives. Consensus reality therefore refers to the agreed-upon concepts of reality which people in the world, or a culture or group, believe are real (or treat as real), usually based upon their common experiences as they believe them to be; anyone who does not agree with these is sometimes stated to be "in effect... living in a different world."[6]

Throughout history this has also raised a social question: What shall we make of those who do not agree with consensus realities of others, or of the society they live in? Children have sometimes been described or viewed as "inexperience[d] with consensus reality,"[7] although with the expectation that they will come into line with it as they mature. However, the answer is more problematic as regards such people as have been characterised as eccentrics, mentally ill, divinely inspired or enlightened, or evil or demonic in nature. Alternatively, differing viewpoints may simply be put to some kind of "objective" (though the nature of "objectivity" goes to the heart of the relevant questions) test. Reality enforcement is a term used[citation needed] for the coercive enforcement of the culturally accepted reality, upon non-conforming individuals. It has varied from indifference, to incarceration, to death.

The Daze Foam

The plot revolves around fourteen colonists of the world Delmak-O. They are: Betty Jo Berm, a linguist; elderly Bert Kostler, settlement custodian; Maggie Walsh, a theologian; Ignatz Thugg, who oversees thermoplastics; Milton Babble, a physician; Wade Frazer, a psychologist; Tony Dunkelwelt, a geologist; Glen Belsnor, who specialises in telecommunications; Susie Smart, a typist; Roberta Rockingham, a sociologist; Ben Tallchief, a naturalist; Seth and Mary Morley, a marine biologist couple; and Ned Russell, an economist. They inhabit a universe in which the deities of their religion actually appear to exist and can be contacted through a network of prayer amplifiers and transmitters. Tallchief is transferred to Delmak-O as a direct result of his praying.

Delmak-O is mysterious and largely unexplored. It seems to be inhabited by both real and artificial beings and enormous cube-shaped, gelatinous objects ("tenches") that duplicate items presented to them and give out advice, in anagrams reminiscent of the I Ching. In addition, various members of the group report sightings of a large "Building". As various calamities continue to befall each character, part of the group ventures out to find the Building. However, each member of the group perceives the Building differently and determines it to have a different purpose.

One by one Tallchief, Smart, Dunkelwelt, Kostler and Walsh either kill themselves or are killed under mysterious circumstances. During a fight between the remaining colonists Seth Morley is shot through the shoulder causing an artery to be severed. While recovering from an attempt to repair the artery, Morely is abducted by armed men who kill Belsnor. They put Morely aboard a small flying craft but Morley overpowers them and takes control of the craft. With it he discovers that Delmak-O is in fact Earth, and he returns to the group to report this.

Once Morely informes the remaining colonists of this, the group then come to the conclusion that they are all part of a psychiatric experiment. Once they admit to having killed the other members they conclude that the experiment has been a failure. It is at this point that they notice that each of them are tattooed with the words "Persus 9." They decide to ask a tench what this means but doing so causes the tench to explode and the world around them to crumble to pieces.

All of them, including the colonists thought to be dead, awake to find that they are actually the crew of a spaceship that has become stranded in orbit around a dead star with no way of calling for help. It becomes clear that the whole experience had been a kind of virtual reality designed to help them pass the time. Seth Morley is depressed by this and wonders whether it would be better to let all the air out from the ship and thus kill them all rather than live out the rest of their lives engaging in virtual reality with no hope of rescue. Before he acts, however, an aspect of the deity, supposedly existing only in the virtual reality and not part of the "real" world appears before Morely and removes him from the ship. The others, unconcerned with his disappearance, embark on another hallucination which begins in exactly the same way as the previous one, only this time without Seth Morley.

Daze Fame Hot

Orson Welles'
Mr. Arkadin
-
A Maze of Death

by Philippe St-Germain

Mr. Arkadin

Philippe St-Germain is a Quebec-based writer.

When he was young, Orson Welles already played grown-ups. He shouted excerpts of Shakespeare's plays in front of bewildered people, anticipating both his trilogy of works inspired by the bard's oeuvre (Macbeth [1948], Othello [1952] and Chimes at Midnight [1966]) and his own ferocity as an actor/filmmaker. He already needed to use his knowledge to be someone else, or rather to add layers to his own personality. As an actor, he often confessed the need to resort to disguises and mystifications in order to play some characters. This chameleonic doubling between the man and the actor becomes triple since all the characters he gives life to, in his own films, are themselves veiled by various ramifications. These masks can be physical, metaphorical or both; Mr. Arkadin (1955), a French/Spanish production that Welles shot during his forced exile from the United States, falls into the third group.

Orson Welles' films are full of masks and false doubles; they're always morally ambiguous. While he wants to maintain man's dignity, he refuses to judge since judgment, according to him, is ineffectual: it invariably leads to chaos or death (Citizen Kane [1941], The Lady From Shanghai [1948], Mr. Arkadin, Touch of Evil [1958], The Trial [1962], Chimes at Midnight). Trying to dig deep through an individual's inner self will never reveal his precise portrait since too many aspects elude us. Citizen Kane exposed this conflict, the goal of its quest being ultimately ignored. Welles' film debut built the foundations of his moral approach, and each subsequent one proposes a new reading of the eternal friction between a quest (for truth, for justice, for identity) and its consequences. This preoccupation can be traced back both to his essay films (F For Fake [1973], Filming Othello [1978]) and to his narrative features.

Mr. Arkadin opens with an image whose importance is only apparent later on: a plane is moving in the sky, seemingly without any destination. A bit later, Van Stratten (Robert Arden) and his girlfriend (Patricia Medina) end up near a dying man who tells them the name "Arkadin". After some research, Van Stratten reaches the mysterious man bearing this name (Welles) and Arkadin, pleading amnesia, requests him to prepare a report containing the main events of his life, promising him a sum of money in return. As the case progresses, the witnesses called upon by Van Stratten are assassinated; he soon discovers the link between these murders and Arkadin as he tries to protect the only witness still alive (Akim Tamiroff). Arkadin's daughter (Paola Mori), unknowingly, drives the denouement home.

In the films of Orson Welles, the quest for truth can be initiated in a number of ways - it can be encouraged by those who represent the image of good (cops, journalists, kings, etc. - that's the case in Citizen Kane, The Stranger [1946], Macbeth, Othello, The Trial and Chimes at Midnight), but it can also be unintentionally kicked off by a character who is at the center of the dilemma, one who unwittingly drops some cues (The Magnificent Ambersons [1942], The Lady From Shanghai, Touch of Evil). Along with The Immortal Story [1968], Mr. Arkadin is the sole Welles narrative feature in which the character undergoing the investigation voluntarily initiated it.

This, in turn, affects all reflections concerning the film's thematic elements. When Arkadin tells the story of the scorpion who, unable to control his instincts, stings the frog that transports him over the water's surface and thus kills both of them, he relates the story of the characters that Welles embodies in his own films. These men, in part conditioned by exterior factors (implicitly tied - at various degrees and necessarily arbitrary since they're subjective - to the past, to the experience of the actor who incarnates them), have an objective and are only guided by it. They're sometimes aware of the utopian aspect of their goal but still proceed towards it, literally unshakeable. Arkadin's enterprise is doomed from the start - it would be intolerable for him if his daughter knew of his machinations, yet even this cannot stop him. This gives Arkadin the obsessive, pathetic aspect that defines Welles' characters - people running to their ruin since they stay true to their nature (to their character, to use a more precise word that's mentioned throughout the film).

On the other hand, Van Stratten isn't infused with the same strength: he's intrigued by the sum promised by Arkadin, but eventually capitulates in order to fight for his own survival. Only Van Stratten's thirst for money implicates him in the plot: his main role is that of a pawn manipulated by Arkadin for the creation of his confidential report. Van Stratten is also ultimately responsible for Arkadin's death, for it is his inference (more specifically, his confessions to Arkadin's daughter) that urges his employer to opt for suicide as an option at the last moment. Refusing Arkadin's conditions, though, would have provoked Van Stratten's own death. Mr. Arkadin's universe, whose intransigent moral prizes integrity over the fight for survival, is a sort of maze whose exits are as rare as they are hard to reach (and in which Arkadin is both a minotaur and a victim).

In that vein, Orson Welles' films never conclude with a return to the status quo because they occur, from start to finish, in a world that doesn't accept compromises. The antagonistic forces that fight with each other can't remain unscathed from their experiences since their scheming is bound to cause a deep change in the balance that both initially had. In Mr. Arkadin, the obliteration of strict rules goes as far as to have geographic repercussions, with Welles bringing together wildly different settings in the space of a few shots (a strategy that is also evident in The Trial). During the film, absolutely nothing is anchored in a space fixed and limited by its particular reference points. The architecture isn't only dictated by the physical movements of the characters, but also by their moral (an essential element of the metaphysical implications of Welles' oeuvre).

One doesn't need to get a peak at the film's opening credits to note that Arkadin is Welles' creation. This can be in part inferred by the fact that he stays true to his character, but also because his portrait is mainly given by the intermediary of other people's testimonies. Physically and psychologically, the man takes form more via the perceptions of those who knew him than from his own initiative. Like Charles Foster Kane (Citizen Kane), Macbeth, Othello, Hank Quinlan (Touch of Evil), Joseph K. (The Trial), Falstaff (Chimes at Midnight) and Mr. Clay (The Immortal Story) in their respective films, Arkadin is the object of study of Mr. Arkadin, the mirror in which all the themes reflect and bring new meanings. That said, and contrary to what critical dogma has been implying for a few decades, Mr. Arkadin isn't a pocket Citizen Kane, but an extension (a vital nuance) of that film, with variations on its philosophical explorations.

Orson Welles, after a few shots showing Kane's Xanadu castle and its surroundings, begins Citizen Kane with a newsreel ("News on the march") offering information on Charles Foster Kane, a tycoon of the journalism industry who recently died. The truth of this segment isn't absolute - Kane is intermittently present, but the narrator is the one which spins the web on which rest the man's exploits and failures. What's more, Welles accumulates speculative portraits of Kane during the film: the protagonist's appearances sometimes follow testimonies, but nothing assures the viewers (which include both the film's spectators and some of its characters) that everything is true. The filmmaker, both with the screenplay's developments and his performances as an actor, constantly plays with the dialectic of truth and lies, of subjective and objective. Thus, the "News on the march" segue, far from being an introduction to the film, is intricately interwoven in the massive construction that is Citizen Kane: it becomes a symbol of its eminently complex structure.

Considering Citizen Kane as a series of flashbacks would be a reductive reading of the film since we'd neglect the scope of the interplay between creator and creation: the word "reconstitutions" would seem more appropriate. (In F For Fake, Welles would explore these potentially problematic aspects). While he's defined by his acquaintances' perceptions, Gregory Arkadin doesn't appear in such reconstitutions: his presence is witnessed in the reality of Van Stratten and Arkadin's daughter. The reconstitutions, in Mr. Arkadin, are exclusively verbal, while witnesses share their perceptions of the title-character with Van Stratten. Thus, Arkadin is at the center of a chess game from which his own life depends, but a game that he voluntarily started. We know that he's a player, but he's also one of the pawns. As the film progresses, Arkadin makes a breach in the screen and enters from top to bottom in Orson Welles' tragic cinema.


Translated from the French by Philippe St-Germain and Steve Erickson.
© Philippe St-Germain, October 2000